You're viewing a single thread.
“The son of YOUR president took a single bribe and showed his ding dong on the internet, my president rapes women, lies about his finances, commits fraud and incites an insurrection! See both side are bad!”
Both sides are bad the same way that day-past-expiration milk and arsenic are both yucky
Great way of putting it. Also, your username made me almost spit out my coffee lmao
You probably should spit it out. I heard the creamer was expired.
Such exquisite fartistry!
And some of us just really want fresh healthy food. At least some of us will eat the day old food, but won’t be happy about that being the best choice. But because of polarization and group think, we’re just lumped in with the nazis. The internet is fun.
One side wants a chrisofascist dictatorship, the other wants a corporatocracy. VERY different types of totalitarian governments.
I find it interesting that the hamas Israel conflict has become such a political issue. Support of Israel in general, yeah religiously charged. But Hamas did start the attack and do a ton of fucked up stuff. SO many hostages including Americans. Israel is an oppressive government and from a distance seems systemically racist not just overly defensive. I just feel like this is a more nuanced issue
Hamas did start the attack
If you think history started on the 7th of October, maybe.
I just feel like this is a more nuanced issue
Genocide is bad.
I just think it’s worth noting that Hamas does call for the destruction of Israel. You can’t discount one set of lost lives for another. The only real victims here are non-Hamas Palestinians
Hamas calls for a two state solution along 1967 borders.
Not that it matters: genocide is bad, regardless of what the people being genocided believe.
So, two points
-
I don't understand why you're going to a website of the USA intelligence apparatus - an apparatus that is currently participating in a genocidal war against Hamas - in order to learn what Hamas calls for. Why not look at what Hamas themselves say?
-
Why are to adopting the default position that they do call for the destruction of isreal and then asking for sources that prove otherwise? Seems like the people making the claim should be able to provide their source, and if they can't, they should maybe be asking themselves why they believed it in the first place.
Though, again, it's not really relevant: genocide is bad.
I’m honestly not. I want to learn, especially in times like these where the information warfare is so tough on both sides. These were just the only more academic sources I could find. I’m not saying “I’m right until you prove otherwise” just trying to crowd source research
Well that's fair enough.
When it comes to the official stance of Hamas, I would suggest looking at their 2017 Charter. Notably item 20:
- Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
That is interesting and thank you for the primary source reference! I’m trying to interpret the 1967 border phrase with the “complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea”. Is that just referring to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, not either or? Otherwise, the big concerning phrase is the “rejection of the Zionist entity”. It also seems by that last sentence that they want the total dismantling of Israel, but to compromise internally within Palestine, they’re willing to accept merely the 1967 line
-
Hunter has done a lot more worse than that. Nice on you picking and choosing his weakness offences.
Hunter isn’t even in a political office! He shouldn’t even be on anyone’s radar. And you sir/madam are part of the problem.
Get off the internet and stop watching Fox News, it has rotted your brain.
It doesn't matter though, he's not the president and is not involved in any politicalmatters. Sure, he should be investigated if he did something wrong, but why is that relevant?